Comments on: Haltemprice and Howden

By: Matt

Matt — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 15:18:45 +0000

Does anyone know if the Lib Dems have selected a candidate here yet – the previous one stood down a long time ago

By: Pete Whitehead

Pete Whitehead — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 01:17:22 +0000

Buckrose covered the northern part of the East riding and corresponds quite closely to the current Yorkshire East seat.
Most of Haltemprice was in the Howdenshire seat before 1950 which was quite similar to this constituency except it included Hessle, the area around Pocklington and some areas which are now in North Yorkshire (and York). It also exclluded Cottingham which was in the Holdernes seat (a seat which but for the inclusion of Cottingham would be identical to the current Beverley & Holderness seat).
From 1885 to 1918 Cottingham had been in Howdenshire

By: Barnaby JL Marder

Barnaby JL Marder — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 23:47:20 +0000

Before 1950 there was a constituency called Buckrose – perhaps it was there?

By: Joe James B

Joe James B — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 22:36:09 +0000

Cottingham is part of the historic Haltemprice District, so I feel sure it was in the Haltemprice constituency of 1955-83 (renamed Beverley 1983-95/97).
1950-55 it would have been in Hull, Haltemprice, a constituency which included some wards within Hull city.
It would have been Haltemprice and Howden of course since 1997.
I couldn’t answer the period before 1950.

By: Harry Porter

Harry Porter — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 22:23:00 +0000

Which constituencies have included the village of Cottingham?

By: Hector

Hector — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 11:22:25 +0000

As has been said, it won’t happen anyway, but I disagree that it wouldn’t be reported.

The press probably wouldn’t bother at first but all it would take was some independent or some small party who were planning to campaign against “all these corrupt MPs” to suddenly be faced with having to pay double their deposit.

They go running to the press complaining that the main parties are trying to gag them and force them not to stand and all of a sudden, there’s your headline. Even using the line that it would help recoup costs for the election and help the economy could open up an argument like “oh, these MPs spent all the money on expenses and now they are trying to make the fringe parties pay for it”.

Its fairly irrelevant at the moment anyway but that’s why it would be a bad idea. Next time around, maybe.

By: ray l

ray l — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:16:41 +0000

It would be reported – it wont’ happen in time. Bloggers would report this and it might not be a big story, but it would be picked up.

No riots in the streets, agreed. But I didn’t say that anyway!

By: Shaun Bennett

Shaun Bennett — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 09:10:08 +0000

“Ah but would they? I know that in some seats in 2005 there was only a choice of three”

Yes, I think that that can be described as a completely free and fair choice.

Ray, you are still massively getting this little piece of electoral law out of proportion. It wouldn’t be reported at all. Certainly, there would be no great riots in the streets to oppose it.

By: ray l

ray l — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 07:55:04 +0000

The cost will not be increased before 2010 – they’d have had to put a bill through parliament by now. Additionally, they won’t do this – politicians in general are at a peak of unpopularity. It would be seen as making it harder for fringe candidates to stand.

By: doktorb

doktorb — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 07:49:27 +0000

“Also, there is no democratic worries by raising the deposit because people will still have a free choice from a wide range of candidates. ”

Ah but would they? I know that in some seats in 2005 there was only a choice of three (in England), a state which could well be more common in 2010 (or 2015) if the cost is increased.

There is a valid point to be made about how the £500 has not raised with inflation or general state of living, however the consequences of raising it *at this specific time* are, for me, too easy to exploit as “drawing up the ladder” behind MPs who’d rather not have candidates standing against them.